gb_test_connection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It states the operation is read-only, explains the meaning of the sandbox key in the reply, reveals that the environment cannot be changed from this server, and documents a permission difference that produces a 403 for stock-only users.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but information-dense; every sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: operation, environment detection, precedence, immutability, and permission boundary. The purpose is front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema probe tool, this description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what response field to inspect, why the value matters, what cannot be changed, and which roles are required. There is no meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Probe'), a specific resource ('GunBroker API connection + credentials'), and an explicit read-only scope. It clearly establishes that this tool determines which GunBroker environment the POS is connected to, which separates it from the other test_connection siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear situational guidance: read the sandbox key before doing anything else to learn which environment is active. It also notes that stock-only API users will get a 403 here, while the other gb_ tools accept their role. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools to use instead, but the context is strong enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.